Which brings us around full circle to the asinine premise of this entire thread.

WRONG and perhaps the worst conclusion possible to draw. No one has declared that Democrats have bad intentions that somehow are hidden by their good actions. Their actions, calling elections to be suspended for example are judged plainly for what they reflect.

WRONG and perhaps the worst conclusion possible to draw. No one has declared that Democrats have bad intentions that somehow are hidden by their good actions. Their actions, calling elections to be suspended for example are judged plainly for what they reflect.

He is right never say Fuck democracy people died for democracy from the civil war till now in Afghanistan and actually all over the world.Go to Cuba and live there!

He is right never say Fuck democracy people died for democracy from the civil war till now in Afghanistan and actually all over the world.Go to Cuba and live there!

Glad you feel that way. They both agree with you that democracy is an overall good thing. That is not what they are arguing about. Read the thread title again and the first post. They are arguing about whether people of a particular political leaning a actually saying that or not.

NoahJ"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi

that's a matter of opinion. In my opinion, the premise of this thread is hypocritical and asinine.

Republicans: "Fuck freedom. Fuck liberty!"

You might have a point if already in this thread there weren't clear examples of Democrats and Leftists wanting to junk our system in favor of something more authoritarian to get their policies advanced.

You might have a point if already in this thread there weren't clear examples of Democrats and Leftists wanting to junk our system in favor of something more authoritarian to get their policies advanced.

And you and Trumptman might have a point if already in this thread there weren't clear examples of Republicans and Rightists wanting to junk our system in favor of something more authoritarian to get their policies advanced.

And you and Trumptman might have a point if already in this thread there weren't clear examples of Republicans and Rightists wanting to junk our system in favor of something more authoritarian to get their policies advanced.

The caricatures in your head don't count as examples nor does the mockery of The Daily Show.

The caricatures in your head don't count as examples nor does the mockery of The Daily Show.

So the fact that the Bush Administration set up a system where young Republicans recruited from colleges systematically blocked freedom of speech is a caricature. The fact that the administration actually worked with the police and illegally arrested people for expressing their opinion is a caricature. Right.

So the fact that the Bush Administration set up a system where young Republicans recruited from colleges systematically blocked freedom of speech is a caricature. The fact that the administration actually worked with the police and illegally arrested people for expressing their opinion is a caricature. Right.

Fuck you.

People can allege whatever they want and especially in Democratic circles, they often do. I can remember plenty of discussions around here where Bush would never allow elections and Republicans could never lose control of government because all the elections were fixed by their cronies. So sure, I treat an unproven allegation as exactly what is is and nothing. I post real examples from first hand sources, not allegations that infer something from an act.

So the fact that the Bush Administration set up a system where young Republicans recruited from colleges systematically blocked freedom of speech is a caricature. The fact that the administration actually worked with the police and illegally arrested people for expressing their opinion is a caricature. Right.

Fuck you.

Yea 'cuase that's the same as Obama's former budget director wanting to end public oversight.

People can allege whatever they want and especially in Democratic circles, they often do. I can remember plenty of discussions around here where Bush would never allow elections and Republicans could never lose control of government because all the elections were fixed by their cronies. So sure, I treat an unproven allegation as exactly what is is and nothing. I post real examples from first hand sources, not allegations that infer something from an act.

This wasn't an unproven allegation. The court declared that the government was at fault. Then before final judgment and compensation was ordered by the court, the government paid the couple hush money to make it go away. Lovely. Unproven allegation, my ass.

So the fact that the Bush Administration set up a system where young Republicans recruited from colleges systematically blocked freedom of speech is a caricature. The fact that the administration actually worked with the police and illegally arrested people for expressing their opinion is a caricature. Right.

Guess what mate, with cloture in the Senate and controlling the House of Reps, the US essentially now has both houses of government controlled by the Republicans.

This is representative democracy, in whatever form is left (as in, remains, not left as in left-wing). In the Senate, a 60-40 vote needed (cloture) essentially means the Democrats need Republican support to pass anything in the Senate. Assuming it gets passed in the House of Reps in the first place.

Things are not looking promising. Bitter partisanship is going to deal some serious damage to the US.

Are differences so deep that a "double-dissolution" (well, triple, if you take into account the Executive branch) should be possible? What happens in this case? Republicans controlling both houses and Democrats in the White House. Has partisanship become too much? Who has the authority to fire the whole government and do fresh elections for, like, everything. Or is this course of action just going to be total chaos... Is it even provided for in the constitution?

I found some FIRE CONGRESS! sites. Interesting, but any validity to them?

This wasn't an unproven allegation. The court declared that the government was at fault. Then before final judgment and compensation was ordered by the court, the government paid the couple hush money to make it go away. Lovely. Unproven allegation, my ass.

So link to it and let me judge a source better than you passing on hearsay.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nvidia2008

Guess what mate, with cloture in the Senate and controlling the House of Reps, the US essentially now has both houses of government controlled by the Republicans.

This is representative democracy, in whatever form is left (as in, remains, not left as in left-wing). In the Senate, a 60-40 vote needed (cloture) essentially means the Democrats need Republican support to pass anything in the Senate. Assuming it gets passed in the House of Reps in the first place.

Things are not looking promising. Bitter partisanship is going to deal some serious damage to the US.

Are differences so deep that a "double-dissolution" (well, triple, if you take into account the Executive branch) should be possible? What happens in this case? Republicans controlling both houses and Democrats in the White House. Has partisanship become too much? Who has the authority to fire the whole government and do fresh elections for, like, everything. Or is this course of action just going to be total chaos... Is it even provided for in the constitution?

I found some FIRE CONGRESS! sites. Interesting, but any validity to them?

Bush had a Democratic Senate from 2000-2002 and a full Democratic Congress from 2006-2008. Obviously the Democrats were in the Senate minority from 2002-2006. Why was it he could get things done and in fact was accused of being a tyrant and dictator because of his ability to get legislation done?

It isn't about partisan. Bush made compromises in legislation. I can recall because many of them I hated. Obama throws a giant thousand page omnibus bill out there and says take it or leave it and they take it when he had a full Democratic Congress and they leave it when they don't.

Bush had a Democratic Senate from 2000-2002 and a full Democratic Congress from 2006-2008. Obviously the Democrats were in the Senate minority from 2002-2006. Why was it he could get things done and in fact was accused of being a tyrant and dictator because of his ability to get legislation done?

It isn't about partisan. Bush made compromises in legislation. I can recall because many of them I hated. Obama throws a giant thousand page omnibus bill out there and says take it or leave it and they take it when he had a full Democratic Congress and they leave it when they don't.

Maybe the Democrats cooperated a bit better as well during Bush's tenure? Just throwing that idea out there.

Guess what mate, with cloture in the Senate and controlling the House of Reps, the US essentially now has both houses of government controlled by the Republicans.

This is representative democracy, in whatever form is left (as in, remains, not left as in left-wing). In the Senate, a 60-40 vote needed (cloture) essentially means the Democrats need Republican support to pass anything in the Senate. Assuming it gets passed in the House of Reps in the first place.

Things are not looking promising. Bitter partisanship is going to deal some serious damage to the US.

Are differences so deep that a "double-dissolution" (well, triple, if you take into account the Executive branch) should be possible? What happens in this case? Republicans controlling both houses and Democrats in the White House. Has partisanship become too much? Who has the authority to fire the whole government and do fresh elections for, like, everything. Or is this course of action just going to be total chaos... Is it even provided for in the constitution?

I found some FIRE CONGRESS! sites. Interesting, but any validity to them?

Maybe the Democrats cooperated a bit better as well during Bush's tenure? Just throwing that idea out there.

They helped enable a torturing, tyranical, war-mongering president. Is that what you are saying?

We've run into this reasoning in the past. How is it that the misguided, incompetent idiot can fool the smart people all the time? Why are they so "smart" if they were fooled and outmanuvered and basically beaten by an idiot all the time?

You can't have it both ways. If an idiot beats you all the time and you are so smart, they're not an idiot and you're not as smart as you think.

Jackson called for full government employment of the 15 million unemployed and said that Obama should declare a national emergency and take extra-constitutional action administratively without the approval of Congress to tackle unemployment.........

Quote:

........President Obama tends to idealize and rightfully so Abraham Lincoln, who looked at states in rebellion and he made a judgment that the government of the United States, while the states are in rebellion, still had an obligation to function, Jackson told TheDC at his Capitol Hill office on Wednesday.

On several occasions now, weve seen the Congress is in rebellion, determined, as Abraham Lincoln said, to wreck or ruin at all costs. I believe in the direct hiring of 15 million unemployed Americans at $40,000 a head, some more than $40,000, some less than $40,000 thats a $600 billion stimulus. It could be a five-year program. For another $104 billion, we bailout all of the states for another $100 billion, we bailout all of the cities, he said.

So now disagreement with the Democratic party is akin to rebellion and secession from the United States of America and so we ought to suspend the Constitution and do whatever is "necessary" aka enact a spending bill WITHOUT Congress to do as we desire.

Does anyone see where Al Sharpton actually called for violence in that statement?

That's right. He didn't.

He's calling for mass action. He's calling for protests.

More absurd, hysterical conservative pants-pissing.

SDW does tend to get ahead of himself, and get it wrong at that. He just made shit up out of thin air in the other thread, claiming I said the McDonald's guy was guilty, when I said nothing of the sort.

But he will do that. ASSUME.

Oh, forgive me, that was FloorJack.

So hard to tell them apart sometimes, please accept my apologies. So the fact is that they both tend to assume.

“Absolutely, I think [Obama] should do that but there are not a lot of places where he can act unilaterally,” Moran told TheDC during Conservation International’s Oct. 20 dinner in Washington, D.C.

“If he chooses to act unilaterally,” Moran said, “the likelihood is that there will be language in the appropriations bills that will prohibit him from spending money for that purpose. That’s just the political reality. But notwithstanding that, I think he should do everything he can do on his own to stimulate jobs.”

Obama has already asked his Council on Jobs to identify areas of the American Jobs Act that can be implemented without congressional authorization.

Moran told TheDC that he would “like to see” the Obama administration “refinance every home mortgage at three-and-a-half to four percent” interest, which he said can be accomplished without approval from Congress.

Remember when Democrats used the word "unilateral" like it was a slur during the Bush administration?

Boy how times have changed. Now the calls for Fascism or outright dictatorship grow daily from the leftists.